DK -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/2028/2023

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

2 June 2023

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Constable

Between:

The King on the application of
DK

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for Directions
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Constable

Anonymity

  1. There be substituted for all purposes in this action, in place of reference to the Claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to the letters “DK”;
  2. The Court file is to be retained by the Court and marked “Anonymised”. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C a person who is not a party to these proceedings may obtain a copy of pleadings, a Judgment or Order from the Court records only if the pleadings, Judgment or Order has been anonymised such that the Claimant is referred to as DK in those documents and his address has been removed;
  3. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant. In particular, disclosure of the Claimant’s name or address is prohibited.

Directions

  1. The Defendant shall file and serve her response to this application for interim relief within 14 days of the date of this Order;
  2. In relation to each of the following categories of documentation, the Defendant shall as part of its response either provide the documents or, to the extent it is unable to or unwilling to do so, it shall provide reasons:
    a. The Minute of the decision to detain, all Detention Reviews and all Monthly Progress Reports in respect of the current period of detention;
    b. All internal notes, memos and correspondence bearing on the latest decision to detain the Claimant;
    c. All documents and papers held in respect of any attempts during this period of detention to prepare an ETD application including all attendance notes, file notes and correspondence with the Malawian authorities (or the authorities of any other State).
  3. Thereafter, the matter shall be listed within 14 days for an inter partes hearing on the question of immediate release to accommodation provided by the Defendant with a time estimate of 1 ½ hours.
  4. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. On the basis of the information provided to the Court, the Claimant is extremely vulnerable. He has longstanding mental health issues including risk of suicide/self-harm, medical needs and significant cognitive-learning deficiencies. He has diagnoses of, inter alia, neurocysticercosis, acquired epilepsy, depression, organic psychosis and a suspected diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder (‘EUPD’).
  2. The Claimant has now been in immigration detention for more than two months. Since being re-detained, the Claimant:
    a. has been placed on ACCT (from 7-27 March 2023);
    b. has self-harmed by cutting on at least two occasion;
    c. has experienced worsening auditory hallucinations and nightmares;
    d. has reported suffering seizures at night 2-3 times per week and been referred for urgent MRI imaging and investigation;
    e. has been observed displaying ‘bizarre behaviour’, including eating food from waste bins.
  3. The Defendant has been attempting to remove the Claimant for over 11 years. At no point throughout that period has his removal been imminent, due to the Defendant’s inability to redocument the Claimant. The Defendant now has before her extensive further submissions and fresh expert evidence as to the Claimant’s mental health issues and risk on return to Malawi.
  4. The claim for interim relief clearly stands a reasonable prospect of success, and the vulnerability of the Claimant which, even in the context of a Court which deals regularly with vulnerable applicants, seems particularly serious.
  5. In these circumstances, the case is suitable for expedition.
  6. In terms of disclosure, I do not consider it appropriate to order the Defendant to disclose particular categories of documents, the existence of or potential relevance of which the Defendant has not had an opportunity to make submissions to the Court in respect of. The appropriate course is that the Defendant should take its own course in relation to the material it produces, with the categories sought in mind no doubt, and should it be unable or unwilling to produce a particular category, it should explain why. The Claimant can then take a view as to whether to apply to Court for the documents to be produced in advance of the hearing. It is for this reason that I have extended the period between the provision of the Defendant’s submission and the inter partes hearing to a period of 14 days, so that any disagreement in relation to disclosure can be resolved.
  7. In light of the vulnerability of the Claimant, the anonymity order is appropriate.

NOTE:
As this decision has been made without a hearing pursuant to CPR 23.8, a party may apply to have this order set aside, varied or stayed, pursuant to PD23A 11.2 and CPR 3.3(4) to (6). The time limit for making such an application is 7 days after the service of this order on the party making the application.